Neptune

Hall of Fame
Open Era until 2023, ranking is solely based on career ATP points, and only calculate R128-F matches.

1
Roger Federer
23,395
2
Novak Djokovic
19,685
3​
Pete Sampras​
15,370​
4​
Jimmy Connors​
14,005​
5​
Boris Becker​
13,365​
6​
Bjorn Borg​
12,010​
7​
John McEnroe​
11,345​
8
Rafael Nadal
10,355
9​
Andy Murray​
9,610​
10​
Stefan Edberg​
8,215​
 
Last edited:

Neptune

Hall of Fame
more details for those who interested

Wim​
W​
F​
SF​
QF​
R16​
R32​
R64​
R128​
Entry​
Average​
1
Roger Federer
23,395
8
4
1
5
1
3
22
1,063
2
Novak Djokovic
19,685
7
2
3
2
1
2
1
18
1,094
3​
Pete Sampras​
15,370​
7​
1​
1​
1​
2​
2​
14​
1,098​
4​
Jimmy Connors​
14,005​
2​
4​
5​
3​
2​
1​
1​
3​
21​
667​
5​
Boris Becker​
13,365​
3​
4​
2​
2​
1​
2​
1​
15​
891​
6​
Bjorn Borg​
12,010​
5​
1​
2​
1​
9​
1,334​
7​
John McEnroe​
11,345​
3​
2​
3​
1​
2​
1​
2​
14​
810​
8
Rafael Nadal
10,355
2
3
3
2
1
3
1
15
690
9​
Andy Murray​
9,610​
2​
1​
4​
3​
1​
2​
2​
15​
641​
10​
Stefan Edberg​
8,215​
2​
1​
3​
1​
1​
1​
5​
14​
587​
 

Djokodalerer31

Hall of Fame
I have huge issues with Borg being placed 6th and Connors placed 4th on this chart...other than that this rankings is more or less accurate...
 

RaulRamirez

Legend
Good compilation, although I don't know anyone credible who would rank players simply on the basis of points amassed.
But taken for what it is, there is some good info in these charts.
 

Cortana

Legend
Who said otherwise? The points are 23,395 to 15,370 as you see. That actually is miles better, just like you said.
Many people here argue that Sampras perfect finals record (7 out of 7) is better than Federers 8 out of 12.
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
Open Era until 2023, ranking is solely based on career ATP points, and only calculate R128-F matches.

1
Roger Federer
23,395
2
Novak Djokovic
19,685
3​
Pete Sampras​
15,370​
4​
Jimmy Connors​
14,005​
5​
Boris Becker​
13,365​
6​
Bjorn Borg​
12,010​
7​
John McEnroe​
11,345​
8
Rafael Nadal
10,355
9​
Andy Murray​
9,610​
10​
Stefan Edberg​
8,215​
Dedicated to those who still think that Murray is superior to Nadal in the most important tournament on grass.
:cool:
 

DSH

Talk Tennis Guru
You need to add his third Wimbledon title, that he won in 2012, points to his tally ;)
I didn't know that a Major tournament and the Olympic games belong to the same class of tournaments.
:oops:
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
In a given season, I think it's a fair - and transparent - way to determine rankings including YE#1.
It's trickier over the course of careers of varying lengths, and at times, different circumstances.
Sort of agree, but then there is no consented way to rank?
 

thrust

Legend
How many more Wimbledons do you think PETE wins if plays until 2011?
Pete could never play till 11, but could perhaps have won another one in 03 or 04 if his body was up to it. As I am sure you know, Pete is 10 years older than Roger.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Pete could never play till 11, but could perhaps have won another one in 03 or 04 if his body was up to it. As I am sure you know, Pete is 10 years older than Roger.
Very very unlikely he wins in 03 or 04. Your whole point about success rate was nonsense.
 

thrust

Legend
Very very unlikely he wins in 03 or 04. Your whole point about success rate was nonsense.
You are talking nonsense! Mathematically, 7 wins out of 14 attempts is superior to 8 out of 22. Also, 7 wins in 7 finals is better than Rogers 8 wins out of 12 finals. Roger's big advantage was his longevity over Pete and Borg's. I don't mean to imply that Pete was a better grass court player than Roger, but that he was more successful at Wimbledon, mathematically and had superior longevity.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
You are talking nonsense! Mathematically, 7 wins out of 14 attempts is superior to 8 out of 22. Also, 7 wins in 7 finals is better than Rogers 8 wins out of 12 finals. Roger's big advantage was his longevity over Pete and Borg's. I don't mean to imply that Pete was a better grass court player than Roger, but that he was more successful at Wimbledon, mathematically and had superior longevity.
8 > 7, and Pete wouldn't have stayed at 7 out of 14 if he continued. Also just so you know, Federer was 7 out of 14 in his first 14 appearances at Wimbledon too.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
I didn't know that a Major tournament and the Olympic games belong to the same class of tournaments.
:oops:

Well, in 2012 they both took place at Wimbledon and the final was played on Centre Court in Bo5 sets between the same 2 players, a 7 times Wimbledon champion and the guy he had beaten.. :cool:

The ATP counts the Olympics as 1 of 4 Big Titles along with Slams, WTF and Masters 1000.
 

Neptune

Hall of Fame
Where are the Roland Garros rankings?

Here, my work doesn't receive any likes.
 

Sudacafan

Bionic Poster
Here, my work doesn't receive any likes.
I have rewarded you with 1 (one) like above, and with 2 (two) likes in the original thread. Sorry for the late response.
The problem is that I did not see your RG thread in the list of recently quoted threads.
 

thrust

Legend
Many people here argue that Sampras perfect finals record (7 out of 7) is better than Federers 8 out of 12.
Also, Federer played more Wimbledons than Sampras and Borg played many less than Roger. One, of course could and probably do, punish Borg for his lack of longevity.
 

Razer

Legend
Djokovic is not even half as good as Sampras on Grass

Number of wimbledons won in 20s

Sampras - 7
Federer - 6
Borg - 5
Becker - 3
Mcenroe - 3
Djokovic - 3

Using Great age shift and winning titles in 30s does earn you the right to be in the same tier in terms of achievements but it wont make you better.

Even Federer is not better than Sampras because Federer took a lot of time to win his 8th wimbledon and he won it courtesy of Djokovic being out of picture.
 

nolefam_2024

G.O.A.T.
Many people here argue that Sampras perfect finals record (7 out of 7) is better than Federers 8 out of 12.
Yes that's always the debate. Some sports analysts have corrupted the mind of people. And then we have some members here who use terms like Alpha for these players to make them look invincible. At least for Sampras it is acceptable because he retired at 32. But extra title extra finals is always better
 
Maybe if Sampras made seven straight finals he'd have lost one along the way? Anyone gone seven for seven in consecutive years at a slam in the OE?
 

Razer

Legend
If Sampras had made 7 straight finals then he would have won all 7. He was the apex predator on grass, he was not a follower to anyone's rhythm on that surface, people played according to his rhythm....unlike Roger who played according to Nadal's rhythm and failed to impose himself on the bull.
 
If Sampras had made 7 straight finals then he would have won all 7. He was the apex predator on grass, he was not a follower to anyone's rhythm on that surface, people played according to his rhythm....unlike Roger who played according to Nadal's rhythm and failed to impose himself on the bull.

Sure, but still lost to Krajicek in the QF, though. And that was three titles in.
 

Razer

Legend
Sure, but still lost to Krajicek in the QF, though. And that was three titles in.

Loss to Krajicek does not mean anything .... Losses can happen until QF, but once players reach SF they are no zoned in then Big players dont lose, and in the final the apex predators just dont lose.

Longest Win Streak of SF+ matches at a particular Slam for players

01. Rafael Nadal - 26 matches at French Open (18 before turning 30)
02. Djokovic - 20 matches at Aus Open (12 before turning 30)
03. Sampras - 14 matches at Wimbledon (14 before turning 30)
04. Djokovic - 13 matches at Wimbledon (4 before turning 30) [Djokovic created this streak in his 30s, but a streak of dominance is still a streak)]
05. Borg - 12 matches at French Open (12 before turning 30)
06. Borg - 11 matches at Wimbledon (11 before turning 30)
07. Federer - 11 matches at US Open (11 before turning 30)
 
Loss to Krajicek does not mean anything .... Losses can happen until QF, but once players reach SF they are no zoned in then Big players dont lose, and in the final the apex predators just dont lose.

Longest Win Streak of SF+ matches at a particular Slam for players

01. Rafael Nadal - 26 matches at French Open (18 before turning 30)
02. Djokovic - 20 matches at Aus Open (12 before turning 30)
03. Sampras - 14 matches at Wimbledon (14 before turning 30)
04. Djokovic - 13 matches at Wimbledon (4 before turning 30) [Djokovic created this streak in his 30s, but a streak of dominance is still a streak)]
05. Borg - 12 matches at French Open (12 before turning 30)
06. Borg - 11 matches at Wimbledon (11 before turning 30)
07. Federer - 11 matches at US Open (11 before turning 30)

The QF or earlier losses likely play a role in maintaining those streaks.
 

Razer

Legend
The QF or earlier losses likely play a role in maintaining those streaks.

Weak eras can make you unassailable till the SF and then you lose, no big deal.

There is a reason why players are judged by their SF+ and especially their Finals performances. The Top players always have to bring their best performance at the main event i.e the Grand Slam Final.
 
Top